What about the 5.2" screen size?

I couldn't help but notice that the Lumia 640 was 5" and the 640 XL was 5.7". I was pretty much expecting this to be the future trend for new Microsoft devices, at 5 and 5.7".

Now, we get specs stating that the Talkman will be 5.2", slightly larger, leaving no "smaller" version of this flagship.

What are your feelings on this? Should 5.2" be a minimum for a flagship level device? Or should people who want a 5" phone get more consideration?

I, for one, am able to handle a 4.5" phone with ease, but find it difficult to handle a 5" phone with one hand. If I were to go 5.2", I might as well go all the way to 5.7" as far as the size is concerned.

Is this going to be considered a budget flagship phablet? Or just a larger phone?

The 5.2" and 5.7" split surprised me. I'd love to hear their reasoning. If the bezels are reasonable (comparable to 930 or smaller), I'll expect find the 5.2" is still manageable, but probably the limit. But why such an odd size in the first place? I wonder if it's a manufacturing thing where those were the available sizes for that resolution. Honestly I would have been fine with a 5" 1080p screen in the smaller device and a 5.7" 1440p screen in the larger device.

The sizes surprised me as well. I would have preferred a smaller choice, 4.5" or 5". I'm not a fan of the larger phones, I like to be able to keep it in my pocket, or drive it with a single hand. I don't see choosing the larger of the two 'flagship' offerings, but it does seem like the smaller one will be missing a couple of features.

I have the 640 now, with the 5" screen. When I compare it to my old HTC 8X, with a 4.3" screen, It's about 1/4" taller and wider. When I look at the Lumia 950 renders, the screen looks to go all the way to the edge of the phone. If the screen is just larger (5.2") than my Lumia 640 (5") and the phone has the same overall dimensions as the Lumia 640, It's still just like having a 5" phone to me.

yeah this is FAIL.. I want 4.6-4.8". On 930 5" its sometime uncomfortable. But MS not do that, nooo they will add SW feature that will move all screen to bottom (and half screen will be unused).. Good one MS, really good..

For me this is fail. The could do 4.8" and "XL" with 5.8" and that will be good. Now theres choice between "large" and "more huge" phone..

(for me this is not about dimensions of phone, but about easy of use one hand... 920 vs 930 its really little diference in dimensions of phones but 4.5" display was for me better use)

yeah this is FAIL.. I want 4.6-4.8". On 930 5" its sometime uncomfortable. But MS not do that, nooo they will add SW feature that will move all screen to bottom (and half screen will be unused).. Good one MS, really good..

For me this is fail. The could do 4.8" and "XL" with 5.8" and that will be good. Now theres choice between "large" and "more huge" phone..

(for me this is not about dimensions of phone, but about easy of use one hand... 920 vs 930 its really little diference in dimensions of phones but 4.5" display was for me better use)

Maybe the"budget" phones will be in this size range?
Or was "business" the other? These flagships may not be, but the others may come in smaller sizes. Or they may not. But I don't see it as a fail.

I see 4.5'' being the new minimum for Lumias as the 4'' will be the new 3''; albeit not exclusively on windows phone handsets. Given 3'' handsets are still produced, they'll likely go the way of the Archos.

I had a Moto X with a 5.2" screen and felt that it was a good sized phone seeing as how the bezels weren't very big. Would I be happy with a 5" screen? Sure. Would I take a slightly larger screen in the same sized package if possible? Yep.

Compare the Moto X to the iPhone 6 and you'll see that the bezels make a huge difference. The Moto X has a 5.2" screen vs the 4.7" screen of the iPhone 6 with only a slight difference in overall footprint.

I think for accessibility reasons we'll still get 4'' handsets. Seeing how small my Lumia 435 is, it's looking more-so like an accessibility/handicaps option... Shoot me if you must, but that's what I think.

I think for accessibility reasons we'll still get 4'' handsets. Seeing how small my Lumia 435 is, it's looking more-so like an accessibility/handicaps option... Shoot me if you must, but that's what I think.

I wouldn't mind them offering smaller versions of flagships. I love my 1520, but I came across my old Palm Pre Plus the other day. I kind of missed it. 3.1" screen. Can't even tell it is in your pocket. However, in day to day use, I don't think I could ever go back to anything that small.

I have no issue, that's probably the smallest size device I'd buy, ATM. I am surprised the 6" was dropped to 5.7", but people seem to think 6" is huge. Oh well.

I've owned 4.5", 4.7", 5.7" and 6" devices. I think 5.2-5.5" is my personal sweet spot, but I love the larger displays for media consumption and image viewing. I have no issue with my 5.7" Note 4 or my old 6" Lumia 1520 I had. As long as you except one handed use is mostly out. It's doable, but not securely.

I'm another who doesn't enjoy the increasing size of phones. I want the flagship features but a 4.5" screen in the smallest possible chassis is the largest I'd like to go. I have a 920 now and I just bought a cheap 532 to run Windows 10 Mobile. The 532 is too thick and the screen quality is poor but having that shorter and narrower phone, because of the 4" screen, is awesome. I actually stopped using my 920 for a few weeks and only came back because of the camera.

The reason for this is because a phone to me is a tool, not really a visual consumption device. Browsing the web, looking at photos, watching videos, even reading lots of, or long, emails are all things I'd prefer not to do on my phone. Firstly because doing those things on my phone usually requires adopting a posture that's bad for my neck, arms and/or eyes, secondly because the experience, even with a 6" phone, is still not as good as on a tablet/desktop PC/TV/etc. and thirdly because I find that a lot of the time when I do use my phone for those tasks I'm usually out and about (hence using my phone) and it's at the expense of experiencing something going on around me.

So yeah, I'm disappointed that the 950 will be 5.2" but I'm really looking forward to Windows 10 across all my devices so I'll likely still buy one.

I honestly think alot of the large phablet's has to do with battery size/life. If you're going to have a 4.5-4.7" flagship with a top SoC at ~1080p, you're going to have bad battery life, in comparison to a phablet. You're running the same hardware with basically 1/3 less battery than a larger phablet.

Who would really buy phones with 2-3hrs screen on time and be happy about it? (My Note 4 averages 4.5hrs screen on time). A heavy user could kill that device well before lunch.

Browsing the web, looking at photos, watching videos, even reading lots of, or long, emails are all things I'd prefer not to do on my phone.

Right there with ya. I use my laptop for the forums here, and for pretty much any media consumption. My phone lets me know if I have any emails that need my attention, and if a response is needed quickly (and a short response at that) I may use my phone to respond. I usually will use the laptop to respond to emails, though.

Not sure if this is a legit reason or not but could it be that the 950 is using the whole chassis of the front for screen and is therfor a 5.2"? Still odd I agree. But I'm not thinking its gonna be dramatically much more of a rock than the 930.

I've long said that 5.2"-5.3" is the sweetspot for me for a normal flagship. Just looks/feels best. And always thought Samsung got it right in terms of phablet size at 5.7". I was very pleasantly surprised by the rumored display size specs of the 950 and 950 XL

The 1020 has a 4.5" screen, but then, just look at how much physical material is around the screen. The new phone with a 5.2" screen has almost no extra material on the side of the screen. SO I am betting that the 950 will be not much wider than the 1020 actually. and the 5.7" will be around 1520 or maybe a fraction smaller.